Cloud Hosting

By Guest Writer

In the 1990s, the UK government procured tacit consent from her citizens to use Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTVs) dubbed as the miracle solution to criminality. A document titled CCTV-Looking Out for You was published in 1994 to reinforce support for the use of video surveillance as a faultless crime-fighting machine. With over 5.2 million cameras spread across the country (one camera for every 13 Britons), the crime rate per capita in the UK is still high although UK citizens are the most virtually herded people on planet earth.

For Ugandans now, imagine that one day you woke up and your freedom of movement (forget Covid-19 movement restrictions) has a price on it, and the price is that every time you leave your home using your car or motorcycle, the government will be able to know all your whereabouts, daily routines, capture and keep all these records in a database for a given period, not to mention predict your future movement using complex algorithms and data mining tools. This is exactly what the proposed car digital monitoring and tracking system will do, disguised as an Intelligent Transport Management System (ITMS). How will this be done? Simple! Have all automobiles fitted with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) devices and install ANPR CCTV cameras on roads that will capture all details about the automobile like direction and a web of travel routes, timestamp, drivers details, make and color of automobile among others, all done in the mighty name of fighting crime. But do we need all these Big Brother intrusive technological surveillance systems to curb crime?

Crime is such a complex social phenomenon caused by a multivariate of factors whose prevention measures or models cannot simply be thought of, or assumed to be monolithic. To think or make such assumptions is to have a nave understanding of crime as a social construct. And to worship a system of hi-tech surveillance cameras as crime saviours is a mistaken belief in the powers of video surveillance known as the CCTV myth. No empirical research to date proves that hi-tech video surveillance systems have any general impact on crime reduction. Studies in the US and several commissioned by the UK Home Office to study the impact of video surveillance systems on crime found no statistically significant relationship between the two. A 2009 House of Lords Committee Report on video surveillance also noted that CCTV cameras were not as effective in preventing crime as earlier believed. CCTVs were instead found to be most effective in dissuading car thefts but not preventing them as such. Overall, studies show that areas manned with cameras do not outperform those without them in terms of crime prevention.

But why do governments still insist on justifying the use of hi-tech surveillance technologies as crime-fighting tools yet evidence shows that they arent? The always quick and blunt answer from government officials is if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. On 8th June 1949, George Orwell, published a novel titled 1984. In the book, he warned that that societies would be doomed if they left unchecked the kind of totalitarian thinking taking root in the minds of policy maker and intellectuals. Many citizenspolicymakersworld are currently in this Orwellian state of affairs, where their governments unjustifiably seek measures of social control which instead restrict citizens fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of movement, privacy, and autonomy.

The ANPR technology was first developed in the UK in the 1970s by the Home Offices Scientific Development Branch and tested in the 1980s to aid investigations into allegedly stolen cars. This was initially done by comparing digital film shots of a vehicle number plate to a database of allegedly stolen vehicles. This technology was further developed into the ANPR network found in the UK today, with over 10 billion peoples data recorded and stored in the database. Londons transport system has over 1,400 cameras collecting number plate data of vehicles to keep tabs on traffic congestion and carbon emission. This is an ITMS led transportation system commonly found in heavy industrial complexes and smart cities to control traffic and reduce accidents. How feasible and sustainable is an ITMS in Uganda, or specifically for Kampala citys chaotic transport management system? And how will it help curb crime, since its part of the main justifications for the Russian deal?

On 24th July 2013, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), UKs data protection authority issued an Enforcement Notice to the Hertfordshire Constabulary Police instructing it to halt its use of the vehicle number plate tracking system in Royston town it considered illegal and unlawful. This followed complaints by those concerned about the Polices use of ANPR to track all cars entering and leaving the city and that yet were installed devoid of any public debate or legal framework. The ICO held that the use of ANPR cameras and other forms of surveillance systems must be justified and proportionate to the problems it sought to address with a prior comprehensive assessment of their impact on the privacy of road users. However, despite being a much welcomed and fair ruling, the problem here is is at least twofold. Firstly, the ICO is a quasi-judicial body whose decisions are only advisory and not binding in law. Secondly, some activists think that calls for justification and proportionality in using surveillance systems only rubber stamps and legitimizes state intrusion of citizens privacy with no apparent overarching value.

So, do we as Ugandans need all these hi-tech intrusive surveillance systems to prevent crime? Well, someones misguided and ill-informed contention despite reading this article thus far may still assume that we do. Numerous evidence suggests that it is through communities, and not video technological surveillance that crimes can be reduced or even prevented. Such can be achieved through the creation and reinforcement of social communal bonds that enhance social cohesion and produce social capital to tackle crime. How will a system of digital car monitoring and tracking solve serious crimes such as corruption, land grabbing, defilement, murder and an array of cybercrimes Ugandans are currently facing? Instead, they can pose serious cyber (national) security issues if the system is not fully secured. Video surveillance has limited utility. Firstly, it can induce fear in the mind of a criminally motivated offender but does not in itself prevent him from committing a crime like the CCTV crusaders would like us to believe. If so was the case, there would be no crime in London and New York or other cities littered with surveillance cameras. Secondly, it can be used for evidentiary purposes in court. But how many have been adduced in court as evidence to support the prosecution of crimes in Uganda? We need a study on this too, otherwise the overall efficacy and effectiveness of video surveillance in crime control, prevention, and reduction should not be glorified and overstated beyond their capacity. To believe that digital number plates will meaningfully solve crime is utterly unfounded and grossly mistaken.

ByDaniel Adyera

Director, Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice Policyemail: [emailprotected]

Continued here:

Why Uganda does not need car digital monitoring and tracking technologies to fight crime - Daily Monitor